It's easy to be right when you live outside the boundaries of reality.
E.g. he won't (didn't?) own a mobile phone, but is okay with borrowing someone else's. He won't use Wi-Fi where he has to log in but would happily borrow someone else's.
It's not being right; it's shifting responsibility in exchange for his own personal convenience.
> It's easy to be right when you live outside the boundaries of reality.
This does not make any sense at all.
But if everyone acted like Stallman then solutions that have gone away such as public payphones would come back due to their requirement.
He doesn't give a crap if a random phone record of his appears in a random haystack, and that's kind of the point isn't it? It's the aggregated, crawlable stores that are the threat
There may be other issues with Stallman, but that behavior doesn't strike me as particularly inconsistent
> it's shifting responsibility in exchange for his own personal convenience.
And? That’s actually one of the strategies to counter any risk, if you can’t avoid it or mitigate it, you transfer it.
It's called 'setting an example'.
One might disagree with value of the example being set, but I'm not sure I would characterize his choices as in any way convenient for him.